The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1887-11-21
THAT FAMOUS CASE
y. d. sn EPHRRD AND OTHERS
Against the City Police and Fire hoard, Do.
cided b; the Supreme Court Of Appeals,
which sustains the Doard-rhc Act
of 1875 is Declared Invalid.

G1he supreme Court OF Appeals oil this
State in session at Oharleaton, on satur.
day, handed down a decision In the case
Of LIB. Shepherd and others against the
City Of Wheeling and the City Board Of
Police and Fire Commissioners, reversing
the decislon Of the Circuit Court otOhio
county, and diminishing the petition. The
Court holda tina. chapter q, Acts Of 1875,
Is unconstitutional, and that the courts
cannot revoke or snnul a city ordinance
upon petition Of ten taxpsyers. 68
This suit was brought In the Circuit
Court here, April 10, 1886. the petitioners
heing j. y. Sheppard, P. 4Wclty, O.$P.
Bruee, g. H%orkhelmer, NJ. Reilly, A,
Brandfass, NJ. Pollock, George Baird, ],
W. Boring Charles Schmidt and Fred,
Happy. They brought suit under a
statute passed by tho Legislature In 1876
which gives ten tax payers the right 10
make a petition OF this Kind upon giving
security for the costs, although 1t may moi
be claimed that any. injury has resulted to
any OF them. This Is the act declared null
and void on Saturday. fa. 3n
This decision forever cots at rest oil
question 40 to the legality Of the Board Of
Police and Fire Commissioners. It ID
said the suit has copt the petitioners 500,
though this statement Is not vouched for.
Meesrs. r. G. Barr, Thayer Melvin and
ALI. Caldwell conducted the case for tho
petitioners, and Hon. w. P. Hubbard, 81,
NJ. Russell, Esq, and Col. George Oald.
well, on behalf Of the Board and the CITY.
The petitioners claimed that Council
had no legal power to create an official
board by whatever name or designation,
and confer upon 1t to any extent the con.
troll, supervision and management OF the
police and fire departments and Of the
property belonging to the same.
The features Of the ordinance 10 which
they. objected were section g., requiring
the Sergeant to nominate his deputies to
tho Board section 7, giving the Board the
control OF the departments named and o.
the property thereof; section 10, authoriz.
Ing the Board 10 suspend officers, to 70.
port resolutions for their removal and ia
discharge or suspend without pay any en-.
ploye of either Of said departments al
pleasure section u. placing the whole 20.
lice force and FIRE department under lbs
order and control of the Board section IS
directing that all accounts pertaining Ia
the police department shall be presented
g and audited and allowed or rejected by
the Board.
And they further alleged that as to tbs
Commissioners, "two Of whom shall be
of opposite politics from the two others
and as to the deputies Of the Sergeant,
who are not to be appointed If "not
capable Of writing and reading the Enp:
lish Language" or if interested or en-.
gagged either directly or indirectly in the
keeping Of any saloon or other place where
intoxicating liquors are sold," the Ooun-
ell undertook to make and apply tests Of
office unwarranted by either the letter OF
spirit Of the Constitution or statutes Of
this State.
The Board entered upon its duties NAV
q without regard 10 this suit, and q dc.
murrer was filed to the petition. May %,
SO, the statute Of rs had been declared
valid, and in January, Of the present
year, Judge Jacob sustained the petition.
ers as to the police Jurisdiction of the new
Board. An appeal was at once taken,
with the above result.